I don't want to change this thread.
While the CA statute has it written in that they can inspect, a check over on the CA forum seems to point out that this is a 4th amendment rights violation.
The analogy is that they could write a statute that allows the police to inspect the interior of your house to make sure doesn't have any high cap mags inside. Still fails the 4th amendment test.
Does it matter?
Do you want the anti's stirred up like they are over it in cali trying to violate 2a, 4a rights?
We have some great laws in mo, that changed a lot over the last ten, pushing ones agenda in a real in your face manner has repercussions that have been seen elsewhere and are being seen in Maplewood. Sitting around ways to skirt the laws, the proposed laws is a real good way to get the anti's fired up to work harder at the state level.
We lost em a little at a time, we got em back a little at the same time, no reason to shift the tides back.
Boycott Maplewood and their business's and let em know, sure. Disable a firearm and sport it around so you draw unnecessary attention within a community that has already spoken clearly they do not want this and are willing to trample your rights to prevent it, well that is just kind of stupid.
The dog has been poked, its awake now, lets not give it rabies and watch it run wild, let it lay its head down and go back to sleep.
If we can keep anyone from getting exploited, perhaps ext year something like HB841 can get through and then the following year something that eliminates the requirement to pay for it comes along, but as far as this year goes, its over, the legislators KNOW the dog is awake and they are NOT going to get bit.